Gallup shows Trump tied with Huckabee among GOP primary voters

posted at 10:55 am on April 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Keep one thing in mind when looking at the data from Gallup’s latest poll of the Republican field. Their sample includes “Republican-leaning independents” as well as registered Republicans. That’s important, because it helps explain Donald Trump’s sudden resonance in the field:

Donald Trump debuts in a first-place tie in Gallup’s latest update of Republicans’ preferences for the party’s 2012 presidential nomination among potential contenders. Trump ties Mike Huckabee at 16%, with Mitt Romney close behind at 13%. Sarah Palin is the only other potential Republican candidate to earn double-digit support.

The April 15-20 Gallup poll finds Trump leading the field among moderate and liberal Republicans, with 21% supporting him. Huckabee is the leader among conservative Republicans. Huckabee’s support and Trump’s support differ between ideological groups, while Romney and Palin get similar support from both ideological wings of the party.

Among the lower-ranked candidates, Newt Gingrich’s support and Michele Bachmann’s support tilt decidedly conservative. Trump is the only potential candidate who shows notably stronger appeal to liberals and moderates than to conservatives within the GOP.

Let’s point out, though, that even where differences exist, they’re rather small — the consequence of a large field with no one frontrunner at this stage. Huckabee’s support split is 13/18 in moderate-to-liberal/conservative voters; Trump’s is 21/13, Romney 14/13. Between the three of them, that accounts for 48% of the moderate-liberal voters and 44% of the conservatives, leaving plenty of room for another candidate to grab the brass ring when the race gets serious. Interestingly, Palin in fourth place splits almost evenly between the two, 11/10.

The Boss Emeritus did some digging on Trump and comes up with what should be a kayo on Kelo:

While casting himself as America’s new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump’s manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot — Coking’s private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking’s home, explained the confiscatory scheme …

Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling “100 percent” and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:

“The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that’s not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it’s local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make (an) area that’s not good into a good area, and move the person that’s living there into a better place — now, I know it might not be their choice — but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.”

Silly conservatives still believe that the person who owns the property should decide what kind of private-sector use should be made of it, not the government, and not wealthy developers who play footsie with politicians to take what doesn’t belong to them. Property rights are the core of freedom; in fact, they are the first rights mentioned in the Constitution for that reason. Long before one gets to the First Amendment, Article I Section 8 grants the responsibility to Congress to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries[.]” And in the Fifth Amendment, we find that the Constitution mandates “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Here’s my question regarding the Trump boomlet. If Republicans want to rally behind a pro-choice (before campaigning), pro-single-payer health care (before campaigning), pro-Kelo mercantilist, what exactly is wrong with Rudy Giuliani? His positions were far to the right of Trump’s on these issues before Trump decided to show up at CPAC, plus Giuliani has had a track record of success in executive office that didn’t involve strongarming people out of their property. Or for that matter, what exactly is wrong with Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, or the rest of the candidates whose conservative credentials activists question, in light of Trump’s sudden Republican advent?

Update: CNN demonstrates that Trump will be a pretty easy target if he wins the nomination:

I’d guess that Eliot Spitzer might have some personal animus he’s working out here, but that’s the point, isn’t it? Why offer the easy target?

“He’s a Hitler lover. I guess he’s an anti-Semite. He doesn’t like the blacks, he doesn’t like the gays. It’s just incredible that anybody could embrace this guy. And maybe he’ll get 4 or 5 percent of the vote and it’ll be a really staunch right wacko vote.”

On former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

“Condoleezza Rice, who’s a lovely woman but she never makes a deal. She doesn’t make deals. She waves. She gets off the plane. She waves. She sits down with some dictator, 45-degree angle. They do the camera shot. She waves again. She gets back on the plane. She waves. No deal ever happens.”

If a candidate ran against McCain in 2008, they need not apply for 2012. If they couldn’t beat McCain, most of us have no interest in seeing them on our ballot again.

What is with this pushing Romney who thought his boys serving in a Mormon mission was equal to serving in the military or Huckabee who on a lot of instances governed in AR to the left of Clinton who is trying to rewrite history?

Why do we as Republicans want to give the nomination to someone who feels entitled because they ran before and has the complete support of Bush 41, his cronies, and Karl Rove (don’t be fooled because Rove wouldn’t be after Trump so hard if he wasn’t going to sign on to Romney). Rove will do whatever Bush 41 wants him to do as that is who gave him his start. Maybe Romney should ask Kay Bailey what having the complete support of Bush 41 and his cronies will do for your primary chances.

This Republican activist won’t support Romney or Huckabee in the primary. Huckabee only won one district in Oklahoma the last time which speaks volumes. We are next door to AR and know the truth.

Want someone new and exciting who can beat Obama — Romney and Huckabee will not get the Indys we need or the conservative Dems to win. They are both blah in my book along with most of the field who cannot win anyways.

I am tired of the inside the beltway people thinking they know what is best and who should get the nomination. Those of us in flyover country probably have a better grasp of the situation and what it takes to win elections.

If there were a Republican candidate that spoke plainly and stirred peoples’ interest, we wouldn’t even be talking about Trump. But mocking Trump sure takes the pressure off the bland also-rans, doesn’t it?

If there were a Republican candidate that spoke plainly and stirred peoples’ interest, we wouldn’t even be talking about Trump. But mocking Trump sure takes the pressure off the bland also-rans, doesn’t it?

Django on April 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

There’s at least one candidate out there singing my song. Your mileage may vary.

There’s at least one candidate out there singing my song. Your mileage may vary.

gryphon202 on April 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

You missed the point. If your candidate were striking a chord with more people, we wouldn’t be hearing so much about Trump. The other candidates don’t have to compete on Trump’s reality show, carnival terms but they need to ask themselves why Trump has sparked so much interest and they haven’t. Trump’s not 100% wrong in his approach but the establishment pundits are claiming he is.

Here’s my question regarding the Trump boomlet. If Republicans want to rally behind a pro-choice (before campaigning), pro-single-payer health care (before campaigning), pro-Kelo mercantilist, what exactly is wrong with Rudy Giuliani? His positions were far to the right of Trump’s on these issues before Trump decided to show up at CPAC, plus Giuliani has had a track record of success in executive office that didn’t involve strongarming people out of their property. Or for that matter, what exactly is wrong with Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, or the rest of the candidates whose conservative credentials activists question, in light of Trump’s sudden Republican advent?

So which part his he right on? The tribute demanded of Iraq and other lands we conquered?

Or the trade war with China?

Maybe he is right we need to work with the dems on a budget instead of passing a conservative budget?

Is he right that Ryan’s plan goes too far?

Which issue has Trump been right on so far?

unseen on April 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM

He’s right when he says we should place America’s interests first and not bow and scrape and apologize for it. He’s right about openly ripping things that others are too “prudent” to discuss, like China’s artificially low currency. He’s right about rejecting convention when it comes to the timidity and deference with which many people, and certainly the media, treat Obama. Every other politician gets the third degree and the harshest sort of proctology investigations, why didn’t Obama? That’s worth discussing. Bring him down off his pedestal.

Trump has made questionable statements but it annoys the hell out of me that Republicans are always shoving each other out of the way to boot stomp anyone on the right who might somehow embarrass them in front of “the cool kids.” Yes, Trump has to be held to account for what he’s said but save the outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth, hyperbolic venom FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

Trump has made questionable statements but it annoys the hell out of me that Republicans are always shoving each other out of the way to boot stomp anyone on the right who might somehow embarrass them in front of “the cool kids.” Yes, Trump has to be held to account for what he’s said but save the outraged, foaming-at-the-mouth, hyperbolic venom FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

Django on April 22, 2011 at 11:58 PM

I’ve said it before and it bears repeating:

Trump is a serial eminent domain abuser.

Trump is a graft artist. For those of you who may not realize what “graft” is, it’s trading non-monetary favors for unethical favorable treatment. It’s “bribery” when money changes hands.

The above two statements are not “Trump bashing” or “hyperbolic venom.” They are bona fide objective take-it-to-the-bank facts. My disdain for Trump and fear that he may be painted as some sort of figurehead of conservatism are my opinions on the man. He is a mercantilist who has bent government to his own ends, and to believe that he is all of a sudden conservative because he says so is a huge mistake.